LIBRARY OF CONGRESS. 

t- uo 

ij^ajt. ©cr|n|rtg]^ !f 0. 

Shelf. J^-"^ 



UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. 



FALSE STATEMENTS 



OF THE 



HEW YORK SUH 



> 



CONCERNING 



c\ 



m. 



1 



I 

1( 



700 



Li 



t 








REFUTED, 



;*<g 



f ,.o.^h^..%J 



-Z. 



Coi..vri<;bt l.y CHARLES D. HOWARD, 1)~79. 

02 Centre .Street, New York. \ 



E'^.^^n 



TO THE READER. 



On the 9th of October, 1876, I placed the original of the following letter 
addressed to me in the hands of Mr. Thomas B. Harrison, of this city, desiring 
him to procure its timely publication from some respectable House against the 
then approaching Presidential election of November 7th. With his habitual 
diligence and conscientiousness, Mr. Harrison sent it next day to the Messrs. 
Harper, with a note requesting them to signify to the bearer when he might 
call on them again about it. Upon reading the note they seemed pleased with 
the message, and said to the messenger with great civility that they would 
further communicate with Mr. Harrison directly. 

No word having come from them within nearly three weeks, the same mes- 
senger was despatched on October 26th, to inquire, when Messrs. Harper told 
him '■'•That the manuscript had not been reached yet in the course of examination ;"' and 
then returned it. 

Upon this Mr. Harrison sent the MS. to the Editors of the New York Timrs, 
and accompanied it with a written request that they would let him know their 
intention about its publication, or return it to him, betimc. The person who 
has that matter in charge at the Times' establishment happening to be absent 
from his office, the messenger left the two parcels with a subordinate in it. He 
went thither again from Mr. Harrison some days thereafter for an answer, 
when the chief, who was at this time present, first looked about as if in search 
of the MS., and then said ''That he could not find it; had no recollection of having 
ever seen it; knew nothing about it.'' Further inquiries proved fruitless : and it 
being at that hour impossible to obtain a duplicate of the letter and print it 
elsewhere before the day of election, it thus remained unpublished. Nor could 
Mr. Harrison recover it after the election had taken place, notwithstanding 
his repeated endeavors to that effect — even though he furnished the Times' 
Editors with a memorandum stating the manuscript's title, date, number and 
size of pages, with other particulars, in detail. 

I confess that I committed a great error in not having kept a copy, or rather 
the original, of the letter with me: but considering the very strange manner 
in which the proprietors of the above named establishments behaved in rela- 
tion to it, I requested and, not without difficulty, have at last prevailed upon 
its writer that from his notes or loose sheets, which I jircsumed still to be with 
him, he would re-write it, and send me its duplicate. This I have now received 
and, for my own satisfaction, have caused it to be set in type, and a small num- 
ber of copies printed with this narrative prefixed, that those who read it may 
know the facts and circumstances under which the hereto subjoined letter, not 
only was not published during the Presidential campaign of 1876, when I 
intended it to be published, but disappeared altogether. 

I cannot forbear observing that the reason alleged by the Messrs. Harper 
for their three weeks' delay in examining the MS. is absurd, and therefore 
incredible ; unless one takes it for a fanfaronade, to let people imagine of the 
great heaps of MSS. which they had to inspect in the order of their reception 
— first arrived, first served — ; as if all the writers on subjects relating to the 
Presidential contest in 1876 had sent their MSS. to the Messrs. Harper, cat h 
hoping for the high distinction, to see his own preferred, and honored by their 
types. But, even so, they could not be excused. In writings destined lo be 
published bafore a certain day, if published at all, everybody sees that the 



2 

Messrs. Harper must either have a sufficient number of examiners to look all 
the MSS. over in time; or not receive the MSS.; or, if received, return them, 
immediately to the senders. The more strictly so . when, as in the present 
case, they receive a MS. with the express understanding and promise on their 
part that, without any further message from the sender, they will communicate 
with him directly. 

Less credible, even, is the answer given by the editors of the New York 
Times, "That they never saw the MS.; knew nothing about it." Apparently, 
it cou-ld not be missed, nor lost. It was not a small-sized note which may 
sometime (though never excusably in a well regulated establishment) get 
mixed with, and hidden among, a number of loose papers; be thrown away 
with them unseen ; and thus be lost without hope of recovery : but it was a 
MS. of no inconsiderable bulk, consisting of thirty quarto pages of i ix8| inches, 
the sheets being, as usually, written on one side only, and all enclosed Avithin 
a capacious envelope. It was moreover accompanied by the separate note 
from Mr. Harrison. These two parcels were left together by the messenger at 
the office destined for that purpose in the Timfs'. establishment. That all this 
was not seen, known nothing about, by the Times' editors ? Credat Judaeus 
Apelld. 

I do rather think that they, as well as the Messrs. Harper, saw and read the 
MS. betime ; but that, as the event gives me right to infer, the ones and the 
others deemed its publication from their establishments undesirable for either, 
or both, of these reasons : First, the writing being a direct refutation of state- 
ments editorially made in the New York Sun, they felt perhaps that the mere 
fact of their publishing it might have unpleasantly affected towards them a 
respected brother editor's sensibilities, of which I presume they are most tender. 
Secondly, although the writing vindicated the correctness of certain rules of 
government announc ed by theii chosen candidate for the Presidency, and in 
this respect was favorable to their cause ; yet it was not a partisan writing, but 
contained also maxims and sentiments unacceptable perhaps to themselves, or 
to the politicians whose displeasure they may have feared to incur by their 
publishing it. But, whether they acted from a feeling of delicacy due to a 
brother editor; or from a dislike of a portion of the contents of the MS.; or 
from any other motive best known to themselves ; the conclusion remains the 
same. — That they, in all cases, should have returned the MS. to Mr. Harrison 
without delay. 

I even think the MS., or extracts from it, to have been communicated to 
Mr. Hayes before the election held on November 7th, 1876, or after the Elec- 
toral ('ommission and C^ongress had declared hini elected at the beginning of 
March, 1877. I rest this conjecture on the fact that — some months after he had 
been installed in office Mr. Hayes caused circular letters to be issued forbid- 
ing publi* officers to take part in politics, — which is a measure proposed, and 
insisted upon at length, in the disappeared manuscript. 

It is not absolutely impossible for Mr. Hayes, or anybody else, to have come 
by that idea of his own accord ; but that such was not the fact in the case one 
may very reasonably assume on the following grounds, among others: The 
idea of prohibiting public officers to take jiart in politics, as far as my know- 
ledge goes, is entirely new, never previously having such a thing been thought 
of, much less pr()])osed or re( onimcndcd, by any one, even as i>art of "Civil 
Service Reform." 

Neither can it be thought embodied, or implied, within the meaning and 
scope of that maxim cherished by the founders of this Government — "That 
public officers should give their whole service to the Government and to the 
People." The import of this sentence, even stretched to its utmost, means./W/ 
performance 0/ o/ficml duties, and nothing more. It cannot be made to pass the 
line of that ( ir( le, and restrain a public officer from doing in liis free hours 
what by law, custom, and general practice, all citizens are allowed to do. 



IV J,l 



3 

What is far more, the personal example of the founders of this Government, 
who habitually attended to politics while they held high and very important 
offices in it, excludes the possibility of supposing that by the words "whole ser- 
vice to the Government and to the People"they meant that public officers 
should abstain from attending to politics. 

Add to this the circumstance of time and opportunity ; seeing that on October 
loth, 1876, and afterwards, the MS., in which that measure is plainly set forth 
and urged on several accounts, was in the hands of parties most friendly to 
Mr. Hayes. 

These considerations seem to render the fact of Mr. Hayes' having come by 
that idea of his own motion incredible; while all the accepted rules of judging 
on grounds of probability warrant the inference that he got the notion from 
the disappeared manuscript some way or other, and acted on it. 

Only (not to mention other mistakes) he began at the wrong end, by assum- 
ing to do from his own power what the manuscript proposes to be done by 
enactment of law; which is the only proper authority for introducing such a 
measure, and enforcing its practical operation. The President may, if he 
chooses, remove public officers from place for their taking part in politics, as 
he may remove them for their going to the theatre, or for any other reasons, or 
no reason at all ; but the extent of his legal action from official power on them 
is confined within these limits : He may (and should) exact of all public 
officers the punctual and full discharge of their duties during the whole of the 
time assigned for that purpose; but he has no power to dictate to them what 
they shall do, or not do, in their free hours. Consequently, he cannot ^orbid 
them to attend to politics, or anything else. Such a restriction of the freedom 
of individual action, if the public good renders it necessary (as it apparently 
does in the matter in hand under present circumstances), can be validly im- 
posed only by the enactment of a positive and express law. This is no part of 
the President's office, except by way of recommendation, but depends solely, 
exclusively, on Congress. 

I conclude with a remark made by the writer of the lost letter in his note to 
me of the 1 8th instant, accompanying the above mentioned duplicate. He 
says: "It appears manifest to all, who will not refuse to see, that the loss of 
the present form of Government is the end towards which this Country is run- 
ning with a giant's strides since many years ; as all things, all parties, and all 
men, though they are continually fighting against each other, yet seem to act in 
concert, and do their utmost to co-operate in bringing about that catastrophe. 
The mad partisan writings, printed speeches, and newspaper articles, with 
which this country is all the time flooded, but more abundantly at the recur- 
rence of Presidential elections every fourth year, say all and always the same 
things, I. e., nothing; or worse than nothing; at the very best, nothing to the 
purpose for the general welfare of the people. They cannot, therefore, remedy 
the evil : on the contrary, by omission and commission both, they must neces- 
sarily aggravate it by steady increase till it becomes hopelessly incurable, when 
death ensues of course. As the only means to be saved from such a fate, let 
us now suppose that, instead of those partisan writings, this Country needed the 
circulation of impartial ones among her people; — writings, I mean, more useful 
perhaps than my lost answer to you, of which I herewith send you the dupli- 
cate, but resembling it in the essential characteristic of absolute impartiality, — 
knowing no party, no man, no body of men, but inculcating principles only for 
the sake and in the interests of truth and right for all ; certainly, the proprietors 
of those two establishments, to whom my said answer to you was presented for 
publication during the Presidential campaign of 1876, appear to have so acted 
concerning it as if the Messrs. Harper had intended and, within a certain limit 
of decency, done their best to suppress the manuscript, and the proprietors of 
the New York Times had actually suppressed it." 

New York, May 30th, 1879. CHARLES D. HOWARD. 



New York, August 29th, 1876. 
CHARLES D. HOWARD Esq., 

Dear Sir, 

I have received your kind letter of the 14th 
instant, accompanying to my hand a copy of tlie New York Weekly Sun, dated 
last July, the Tith, and expressing your wisli to know what I think of that 
portion of Governor Hayes' letter of acceptance which relates to Civil Service 
Reform, and of the Su?is editorial criticism on it, both printed in that issue. 
I wrote to you on a former occasion tiiat I do not meldle with palitics ; but 
vou heed it not, and now say that this matter concerns morality rather than 
politics ; as if any measures proposed, or acted upon, by politicians were not, 
all of them, more or less intimately connected with morality! But, the 
proverb saying that "there is none so deaf as he who will not hear," I must, 
of course endeavor, as plainly and as brietlj as I can, to state my sentiments 
on the subject of your inquuy ; although I cannot but think that, those two 
p'eces having been published seven weeks ago, you have met, or will meet, 
with other comments on {hem pro nwd con ; and much good may they do 

For my part, I have read with great pleasure the proposition laid down by 
Governor Hayes, reviving "Mc old rule,i/ie true rulc^ that honeaty, capacity, 
and fidelity, constitute the only real qualijications for office, and that there 
is no other claim."' It is the lirst sensible profession 1 have met with, or 
heard of, these many years, solemnly announced by a candidate tor the Pre- 
sidency, pledging himself in earnest to stand to it in the event of his being 
elected. 

The more sur[)riscd have I been at seeing that the New York Sun condemns 
that ride, and represents it as something horrible to contemplate. I am un- 
willing to believe that the Sans eye is dull ; but there must certainly be 
some strange cause that has hindered it from Bccing Mr. Hayes' proposition 
as it is in itself, it being almost incredible otherwise that that paper could 
have denounced it as an astonndiyig doctrine; as contrary to a free, republican 
Goveriuiicnt, and to the sentiments of its founders ; as fraught with manifoM 
mischicts ; even as subversive of the CJoveriunont I Whereas so perfectly 
wise that rule is; so thoroughly sound wilhin and all about; that, if it were 
introduced and steadily observed (whicli I very nuich doubt), it would be the 
one really good thing to be found in the politics, or policy, of the United 
States; strengthen the Government by puritying the management and work- 
ing of its machinery ; and more*, than any other good measures that might be 
offered for the purpose contribute towards bettering the character of private as 
well as public life in this country generally. 

Should not the Sun have pointed out wherein the wrong lies in Vix. Hayes' 
rnlc ? Is it in the honesty, or in the capacity, or in the fidelity, which it 
requires in a public olh((>rV 

Yet Irotn this rule, as from Pandora's box, the ^un deriv(\s all manner of 
evils, excludingcven Ho[)C. It makes the three qualilicalions for olli;c named 
in the rule vest their possessors with a claim to oliice ; alhrms that "claim, 
as here used, means right ; " on this it rests " a tcnnrc of ofhcc for life ; " 
and passing from apprehension to a})prehension, it transmits the public othces 
of this (Jovcrnnient hy heritage from fathers to sons, and further descendants 
ill injlnitnui ; builds on this a permanent aristocracy of ollicc-hoklers ; and 
I'rom the action of these it forebodes, as a linal result, the ovcrtlrow of the 



Government! So is the lirst false step on a slippery gromul downwartts necgg-^ 
sarily followed by a continuous series of others without stoppinii; till the bottoui 
is reached. Let us re-assure the Sun that no such dreadful things will take 
place in this country ; certainly not from the observance of the rule proclaimed 
by Governor Hayes. 

You see that the subject of your iiKpiiry embraces a great variety of im- 
portant matters ; which are themselves, by necessary connections, linked to 
a number of others well worthy of serious consideration. To touch on 
these matters even lightly would require, not the space of a letter, but a good 
sized book. I shall, therefore, merely point at some statements made by the 
tSim in regard to IMr. Hayes' letter, as matters of fact : for, they appear to be 
evidently untrue, as they are repugnant to the plain words, and plainer in- 
tention, of Mr. Hayes. 

First : — In the third paragraph of its article, the Sini begins with laying 
the tenor of Mr. Hayes' rule before its readers, and concludes with these words : 
"Thus, according to Mr. Hayes, honesty, capacity and fidelity, constitute 
*a claim'' to office. This he declares to be 'the true rule'." Where has the 
/Su7i read that V 

Mr. Hayes declares "that honesty, capacity, and fidelity, constitute the 
only real quaUjications for office, and that there is no other claim." The 
proposition which forms the first part of Mr. Ha3'es' sentence, and is the sub- 
stance of his rule, is perfectly round and complete in itself; so that the ad- 
ditional, or second part, wherein the word "claim" occurs, caimot in the 
least alter, or modify, the sense of the first, which might for all ends and 
purposes be closed by a period, instead of a comma or semicolon. 

But, even in this additional part, whether it is considered in itself alone, 
or with reference to the first, the word ^'clairii'' is manifestly put in, not for 
admission, but for exclusion ; the unmistakable meaning of the whole sen- 
tence being this ; 'Before placing a person in office, the Government is in 
duty bound to ascertain that he possesses honesty, capacity, and fidelity ; 
these three constitute the only real qualifications for office. But if a man, not 
having these qualifications, sets forth that he has rendered such and such 
services to the Party, and therefore deserves, or is entitled to, an office, he 
shall be refused ; because honesty, capacity, and fidelity, constitute the only 
real qualificatioDS for office, and there is no other claim. To say it in another 
way, Mr. Hayes declares That no claim to office is admissible, but that the 
only thing the Government must consider and require in persons to be placed 
in office is that they are honest, capable, and faithful. 

Nothing could have induced me to dwell, however briefly, on vindicating 
the sense of such an extremely clear proposition as the one now under con- 
sideration, had not the contrary statement so positively made on it by the 
Swi obliged me to do so. 

Will the Sun say that, because Mr. Hayes, after naming the requisite qual- 
ifications for office, adds " that there is no other claim," therefore he admits 
that those qualifications do give a claim to office .' But this is an nnwarrnnt- 
able way of interpretation ; disallowed in our case by both the letter and spirit 
of the sentence which is the subject of interpretation, whether its words are 
considered singly, or collectively together in the whole context. I even 
believe that, if the Sun re-reads that sentence at leisure, it will find that 
Mr. Hayes could not have expressed himself otherwise tlnn he ha'^ done, in 



bider to give the readers of his letter a full conception of the idea winch he in- 
tended to convey. 

To say " that honesty, capacity, and fidelity, C07istitute the only real qual- 
ifications for office,''' is a quite different thing from saying "that honesty, 
capacity, and fidelity constitute a claim to office:' The two propositions 
cannot be taken or exchanged for each other, as the S^in exchanges them ; 
unless it proves beforehand that the word qualification is synonimous with 
the word claim ; which 1 am sure it will not undertake to dok 

After this, I need not observe that, even in persons possessing honesty, 
capacity, and fidelity, Mr. Hayes does not recognize any claim to office. The 
less, because his words are addressed, and must of necessity be understood as 
addressed, to the appointing power, or the Government, as an intimation of 
what she must seek and find in those whom she intrusts with the manage- 
ment of her affairs. His words are not addressed to the persons who are, or 
think they are, possessed of the necessary qualifications for office, to let them 
know that they have thereby a claim to office ; as if they could sue and 
compel the Government to place them in office on that account. For, claim 
imports right ; and right entitles its possessor to sue the other party in whom 
resides the obligation of performing the duty corresponding to that right. 

Let me add that, to say "• Honesty, capacity, and fidelity, constitute a 
claim to office," would be exceeding foolish, because it would be worse than 
useless. For, what steps could the happy possessor of these qualifications 
take, or to whom could he apply, for a recognition and settlement of his claim ? 
More especially, because it is not he who applies for an office, but it is the 
Government who has an office to give, that must be the sole judge of the ap- 
plicant's qualification for it ! Will he, if his demand is not complied with, 
sue the Government for damages? For, this ought naturally to be the upshot 
of unrecognized claims. 

One might observe also that the mere fact of setting forth such "claims " on 
the part of any persons ; and their insisting on their being placed in office 
therefor; would prove them not honest : which, by the rule of Mr. Hayes, 
would be sufficient alone to reject them, 

Butwithout pursuing this subject further, I repeat that to say, eitiier open- 
ly or covertly, that those in whom the requisite qualifications for office are 
found, have thereby a claim to office, would be utter nonsense, because there 
could be no use in it ; tiic thing, in its very nature, being impracticable. On 
this account alone, if on no other, should Governor Hayes have been deemed 
incapable of having intended it ; even thougii his words, instead of being, as 
they are, the plainest and most clearly defined for the exclusion of such a 
meaning, had been of doubtful character, so as to allow the possibility of a 
construction implying it. 

With the foregoing j)aragrapli I had concluded the First Section, and liad 
written most of the Second already, when chance places in my hand the Plat- 
form adopted by the Democratic Party of Coiuiecticut in their state conven- 
tion held at New Haven on the 23d of last Feb'y ; which obliges me to cut off 
the lower half of the page that was common to both sections, in order to add 
these paragraphs to the First. For, in reading the said Platform I find with 
no little surpri.se that the second resolution, devoted to " the Civil Service of 
the Government," contains, among others, this clause — " That honesty^ 
capacity, and fidelity^ constitute the only valid claim to public employment I" 
— the very proposition which the tiun has taken so great pains to father on 
Governor Hayes, as has before been shown. 



It is indeed possible, sometimes a natural occurrence, tliat different person^, 
tvlioUy unknown to eadh otlier and severally inhabiting far distant places, 
clothe their thoughts on the sim6 point of a subject in sentences of precisely 
the same words and texture, as if either of them had copied from the other. 
And so Mr. liityes, even without knowing whether, and in what manner, the 
Connecticut Democracy had spoken about Civil Service in their State Con- 
vention, and declared their mind as to who should be appointed public otiicers, 
may have expressed himself on that point by a sentence exactly resembling 
theirs in language and structure, except that he uses the word " qualitications" 
instead of the word " claim ; " which is the only difference between the two 
clauses. 

If Mr. Hayes however, at the time when he wrote his letter of acceptance, 
was acquainted with the Connecticut Democracy's resolution about Civil 
Service ; if he had in his mind that paiticular cl ause of it which I have here 
above transcribed ; if he chose to adopt that clause as his own, and transplant 
it bodily from their platform into his letter, with the change of only one word 
in it ; certainly, he deserves the more credit for it, because he has thereby rec- 
tified the Connecticut Democracy's proposition, as he gives the words '' hon- 
esty, capacity and fidelity " in the subject matter their true significance and 
just value, which is to constitute qualifications for office, and not a claim 
to office ! 

Second: Because Mr. Hayes urges the necessity of ^^ returning to the 
principles arid practice of the founders of the Oovernment who meant that 
the officer should be secure in his tenure as long as his personal character 
remained uJCniarnished, and the performance of his duties satisfactory,'''' the 
aS'u?J, instead of applauding such a thoroughly correct proposition and excel- 
lent advice, turns it into a reproach. It aftirms that Mr. Hayes would keep 
public officers in place for life ; which is false : and this false inference the 
Sun deduces from the equally false reason that, " there is hardly any real dif- 
ference between a term during good behavior and for life.'''' Thia, to say the 
least of it, is not only false in itself, but is very apt to pave the way to other 
falsehoods ; because it strangely confounds things, and the meaning of words 
which are destined to be different from each other by their own natures, and 
by the ideas which man attaches to them. Oood behavior may and, but too 
often, does have an end within half an hour, a month, a year,' Life lasts till 
death. Perhaps the Sun thinks that all men living, as long as they live, 
behave well. 

For the rest, I would fain know, and the Sun ought to have told us the 
reason why a tried public officer, known to be honest, capable, and faithful, 
should be turned out of doors, and his place given to another person — even a 
person, let us suppose, equally honest, capable, and faithful. 

But then the honest, capable and faithful incumbent might hold his place 
for life ; to which the Sun objects. God grant that all of the public officers 
in the United States would so well behave, and perform their respective duties 
so satisfactorily, as to be continued in their places till death removes tiiem ! 
No better thing could happen to this Government ; no better wish formed for 
the prosperity of this country. Nor could the adoption and enforcement of 
any other measures so powerfully help in bringing about that desirable condi- 
tion of affairs, as the strict observance of Mr. Hayes' rule. 

Honesty, capacity, and fidelity in office, joined with the officer's security 
from arbitrary removal, is such a very good thing ; and so well appreciated 
everywhere ; that a due regard paid to it forms one of the chief redeeming 



features of monarchical, even despotic, governments : Under which an officer, 
who does his duty faithfully, has no fear of losing his place by removal ; — ex- 
cept the salutary fear of losing it through his own fault. 

Third: — From the working of the method relating to office-tenure recom- 
mended by Mr. Hayes in that passage of his letter which I have transcribed 
at the beginning ot the foregoing section, the Su7i predicts an uninterrupted 
series of mischievous consequences with the tinal overthrow of the present 
government, writing as follows : "What I Here we have the bold proposition 
that the eighty thousand office-holders of the United States shall be converted 
into a permanent aristocracy, holding their places /br life ! How long 
would it be before this tenure for life would be converted into a hereditary 
right '/ It is, to our apprehension, a plain proj^osition to overthrow the gov- 
ernment of the People, and to substitute for it a Government of Established 
Officeholders." All this is building castles in the air ; visionary ; having no 
foundation whatever in any word or presumable thought of Governor Hayes ; 
nor in the nature of the thing itself. And, though the matter here spoken of 
is apparently connected with that of the foregoing section, it seems to be im- 
portant enough to occupy a separate section by itself. 

^Ir. Hayes has never uttered either the bold, or the plain, proposition, 
which the Sun ascribes to him, and the possible consequences of which it so 
sadly laments. On the contrary, Mr. Hayes' proposition, if adopted and 
carried into practical operation, would most eifectually arrest the progress, or, 
more properly speaking, prevent altogether the occurrence of those evils 
which the 't^un apprehends. 

But when the Sun tells us of "the eighty thousand office-holders of the 
United States holding their places /cr life,'" it sees not, or does not take into 
account, the capital fact that in these United States there exist two political 
parties, which divide the people of the country between themselves about 
equally as to number ; which go up and down in alternate turns, though the 
intervals of their respective rise and fall may be of unequal duration ; which 
are utterly hostile to one another, striving continually among themselves for 
the CxKclusive control of the government ; which are, in a word, heartily bent 
on starving each other to deatii, if they only could compass that end. 

Looking on these parties as tJiey now stand since above twenty years, it is 
certain, and well known, that the performance of official duties by the present 
incumbents, which is sati.\factory to the Ilepubhcan Farty, is not satisfactory 
to the Democratic Party. The Democratic Party, therefore, as soon as she 
comes into power, will take a mighty besom m her hand, sweep all public 
offices clean of Republican incumbents, and install Democratic ones instead. 
The same compliment will the Republican party pay to Democratic incum- 
bents at her next turn thereafter. 

Hence it is evident that the body of officeholders in the United States 
must be considered as having one hundred and sixty thousand members, and 
not eighty thousand, as the Sun says. The only difference between them is 
a temporary in and otit reciprocally ; the one-half of the whole number hold- 
ing otlicc, not for life, but during their party's continuance in power; the 
otlier half waiting and expecting to occupy the very same offices the instant 
their own party gets the reins of the government into her hands. 

Now, this increase, or duplication, in the number of mutually inimical 
public odicers, to omit other considerations, must needs greatly lessen, or 
rather wiiolly take away, the apprehended danger of the government's over- 
throw by the machinations of that one set of officers who arc in actual service ; 



9 

it being self-evident, as it is natural, that all their movements are most care- 
fully watched and counteracted by the other equally numerous set who are 
out of otiice, not idly looking on, but intently working for the speedy arrival 
of the happy moment when they shall get in themselves. 

But, even in the supposition that only one political party existed in the 
United States ; and that her eiglity thousand public otiiecrs could by some 
possibility become fixed for life ; I would say that, for the matter in hand, a 
direct answer demolishing the whole fabric of the Strn's apprehensions is this : 
"If all of the eighty thousand ottice-holders are honest, capable, and faithful, 
then their continuing in office /'or l/J'e, not only is not an evil to be deprecated, 
but it is a very great good, to be wished, hoped and prayed for. If they are 
not honest, capable and faithful, then they cannot hold their places for one 
week, much less for lite ; because Mr, Hayes' rule inexorably removes them. 

The St(n must have entirely forgot the terms of this rule, or it never 
would have given utterance to such apprehensions. According to what is 
publicly said, and, it seems, believed, of the eighty thousand officers of the 
United States Government in actual service at present, it appears to be cer- 
tain that, if Mr. Hayes' rule were applied to them, not eighty perhaps of the 
whole number would be continued in office. All of the others would be re- 
moved. 

As to those supposed eighty, God bless them ! surely, they should not be 
removed, but retained, begged to stay. 

The word aristocracij made use of by the Sun in this connection, gives me 
reason to infer that the public offices in the United States are very fat things. 
If so, they are fat because Mr. Hayes' rule has not been observed in reference 
to them. Whence it follows that the introduction and enforcement of that 
rule is the very thing needed to set matters right. Neither is the application 
of the remedy difficult, or of doubtful success ; though it may prove some- 
what troublesome at first, and require perhaps a little time to effect a complete 
cure. 

If the offices are too fat, make them properly lean. A fat office is not 
made by, nor for, an honest man. He will not hold it ; w^ill have nothing 
to do with it. 

The establishment of public offices has for its object the efficient service of 
the Government in all^ matters of necessity, great utility, or expediency. 
Hence her duty to secure for the management of her affairs, whether great or 
small (^if any thing can be small in a Government), the services of honest, 
capable, and faithful incumbents. With regard to the incumbents themselves, 
the Sun rightly says for once that it is not for their convenience, accom- 
modation, or use, public offices are intended. I would add that much less are 
they intended to serve the incumbents as means, of opportunities, to make 
money by, and become rich. 

The salaries attached to public offices are to provide the incumbents with 
the means of living as a compensation for their labors, — a modest, decent 
living, proportionate to the quality and amount of service required of them 
respectively ; and no more. This is the reason and basis of pensions 
assigned by wisely regulated Governments to superannuated officers, and in 
most cases continued, for a time at least, to their widows and families. But 
the very allowance of a pension is of itself plain evidence to show that the 
salary which an officer receives from the Government is about as much as he 
actually needs to live decently according to his station ; although its amount 



10 

should always be Weighed on liberal rather than wantitig scales ; and turn 
them. 

Judging from facts which appear to have been ascertained beyond the pos- 
sibility of doubt, it would seem that the public offices of the United States are 
generally regarded and used since many years as means to accumulate a fortune 
in as short a time as possible. This has helped immensely to pervert all 
things and their notions, and bring matters to the sad pass whicli they are in 
at present; and, if it is suffered to continue a little longer, tiiere will be no 
more need of applying a remedy. 

I would observe, however, that the sort of office-holders alluded to in the 
preceding paragraph is the one from which the establishment of a permanent 
aristocracy, so called, and the eventual overthrow of the People's Government, 
might reasonably be appreliended ; and not that kind of officers whom the ru^e 
of Mr. Hayes would install and keep in place. Just the reverse of that may 
be confidently expected to result from the enforcement of his rule and method : 
for, both of them are visibly calculated, not to make aristocrats willing and 
scheming to control the (rovernment (which God avert), but on ihe contrary 
to educate and establish in the community a most useful class of citizens, un- 
seen, unknown, unspoken of, yet most beneticial by their silent work to the 
best interests of the Government and the People. 

The better to enforce that rule, and make the realization of its object per- 
manent, public officers should be kept entirely out of politics by law. They 
must indeed be selected from within the political world, since every individual 
citizen in this country belongs, or inclines, to either one of the Parties which 
divide the people ; yet they should, during their continuance in office, be kept 
wholly out of that world, as a condition sine qua non. Like all other citizens, 
they should of course be allowed to exercise the inherent right of suftVage, and 
to vote as they please on election days : but they ought to be content with 
that ; and, to make things sure, the law should restrain them, under penalty 
of dismissal, to be incurred ipso facto, from taking part in any political move- 
ments, attending caucuses, conventions, processions, mass meetings, and any 
other meetings, large or small, public or private, intended for political purposes. 
This should be embodied in the formula of the oath administered to them 
upon their entering into office : the tirst part of the oath reciting their promise 
not to participate in party politics by word of mouth, or writing, or mere per- 
sonal presence, directly or indirectly, in any manner ; the second part reciting 
their promise to serve the Government foithfully, and to the best of their 
ability. 

Unquestionably, the Government has the right (I believe duty) to lay the 
said condition on those whom she intrusts with the management of her par- 
ticular affairs, and hold them strictly bound to it : more especially, in that 
such a condition is no abridgment of tlieir liberty and rights, eitiier as men or 
as citizens. 

It appears to me certain, that, if such a Law as I have just hinted at were 
enacted, and its provisions rigidly enforced, the public officers themselves 
would soon find their own account in it ; the Government and the People more 
than they. 

The founders of this Government intended, among other good things, '■'■that 
j)uHic ojficers should give their whole service to the Government and to the 
Peopley This sentiment is echoed in the breast of all good men wlio sigh 
after that end, and would fain see it consummated. But liow else can public 
oflicers be expected " to give their whole service to the Government and to 



11 

the People," except tliey are restrained by Law from taking part in politics V 
To hope for that without this, would be the same as hoping to see an etlect 
produced without the workuig of the only cause that can produce it ; which, 
if the expression is allowed, would be sheer nonsense, as the thing is simply 
impossible. 

But we are so far from the condition of affairs intended by the founders of 
the Government in this respect, that, as matters stand at present, the life's 
occupation of a public officer seems to be politics alone ; the discharge of official 
duties coming in as a diversion, or recreation. Nay, the holding of an office 
may, and does, serve the incumbent as a means to be more completely im- 
mersed in politics ; the position enlarging the circle of his political action, as it 
increases the number of objects for its working. 

This letter has much exceeded those limits already which I intended for it 
at the beginning, although I have said but little of what pertains to its subject 
matter. I hasten to close it by taking notice of one more false statement 
made by the Su/i, which is as follows : 

Fourth: The Sun affirms that in the matter of office-tenure, " our fore- 
fathers, the founders of our Oovernment, e7itertained sentiments directly the 
opposite of those espoused by Mr. Hayes : " Whereas Mr. Hayes himself, 
not only declares that his sentiments on that point are the same with those of 
the founders of our Government, but gives an irrefragable proof of it in the 
fact that the principles and practice relating to office-tenure, to which he urges 
the necessity of returning, he ascribes to the founders of our Government in 
express terms. 

In the face of such a plain endorsement of our forefathers' sentiments; in 
the face of such an equally plain profession of his intention to follow in their 
footsteps; to say, as the 8un says, that Mr. Hayes' sentiments are directly 
the opposite of theirs^ is too rich and rare a thing to be titly characterized by 
any known name. It exceeds belief; it would appear impossible if it were not 
a fact in print, — printed by the Sun itself in as many words. Apart from • 
its falsehood, that paper's statement sounds very much like giving Mr. Hayes 
the lie from his own letter : it is worse than that. 

Yet the Sun undertakes to make good its charge from historical, well 
known, facts, stating as follows : " When it was proposed to make the offices od 
Senator and President-^offices for life, the plan was rejected. They limited 
the duration of the office of Representative in Congress to two years ; that of 
President to four ; and that of Senator to six." Tlie stated fact is unquestion- 
able ; but here the Sun goes entirely out of the track ; and one is tempted to say 
that, not to see, or to miss its way, is for a luminary an unpardonable blunder. 

The proceedings of the founders of our Government, and their determination 
limiting to a certain number of years the duration of official terms in the cases 
cited by the S^m, have nothing at all to do with the case in hand. They re- 
fer exclusively to elective offices^ as are those of President of the United States 
and of Members of either House of Congress : Whereas the proposition of 
IMr. Hayes, to make Office-tenure as long as good behavior, refers exclusively 
to offices by appointment. 

Mr. Hayes has defined his position in this respect too clearly, and in too 
many ways, to allow his words and meaning to be misunderstood, or mis- 
construed. He says : "At first, the President, either directly or indirectly 
through the heads of departments, made all the appointments ; but gradually 
the appointing power., in many cases, passed into the control of members 
of Congress." These then, and no other, are the offices in the tenure of 



12 

which Mr. Hayes would make the incumbents secure during good behavior ; 
namely, tlie offices dealt out by the President in the exercise oi the appointing 
power vested in him, and the ofhees dealt out by members of Congress, as it 
were at second-hand, by the President's sufferance. 

Hence, it is also manifest that the Sun entirely fails of its purpose when, 
in the ninth paragrapli of its article, it attempts to put Mr. Hayes in contra- 
diction with himself, writing as follows : "Indeed, after distinctly pledging 
himself, if elected, to conduct the administration of the Government upon the 
principle of keeping public oflicers in office during good behavior — which 
means for life — , .... he goes on in the very next paragraph of his letter to 
announce his inflexible purpose', if elected, not to be a candidate for election 
to a second term." The pretended inconsistency here charged on Mr. Hayes 
is visibly concluded to by the Sxn from its own erroneous notion that tlie 
offices spoken of in the two paragraphs of Mr. Hayes' letter referred to by that 
paper are of one and the same kind. This erroneous notion seems to be so 
deeply rooted in the '^itn that it closes that ninth paragraph with these em- 
phatical, and in many ways remarkable, words : "One would suppose that a 
mole could see far enough to perceive the inconsistency between advocating 
that all other o^ices should be held for life, and insisting that for the Pres- 
ident the doctrine of only one term is indispensable.''] One would have in- 
deed supposed that the San was not shorter-sighted than a mole : But the 
mixture it makes of the office of President and of the offices which tiie Pres- 
ident is empowered to bestow by his appointment, as if they were of the same 
sort, is a jumble which deserves no special notice, except that it is of a piece 
with the rest of the /S'toi'*^ article before remarked upon. 

But, since even the New York San has been capable of confounding the 
nature and character of those two classes of offices, I presume it will not be 
amiss briefly to note here the wide difference that intervenes between them : 

The elective offices are essential parts of theGovernment ; they constitute its 
very frame, or mould. 

For this reason, they must be conferred by the People through their votes, 
and on election day : that is, they must be conferred through the direct exer- 
cise of that power which is the basis as well as the life of this Government, 
and at that time when that power may be practically exercised. For, at all 
other times the power which makes every citizen a sovereign is dormant. 

For the same reason, the terms of elective offices are confined within certain 
periods more or less short, in order that the fellow-citizens of those elected 
may have a fair turn to be for a wliile in command., as during the rest of the 
time they must obey. This alternate command and obedience; or \\\(i possi- 
bility^ aptitude., right and duty, of being in either condition ; is the foundation 
which the equality of citizens rests upon ; which equality is the very soul of 
Kepublican or Democratic Governments. 

Yet, as a general rule, nothinii; iiiiiders the people from retaining the same 
incumbent in the same oflice for any number of terms after the first. Neither 
is this contrary to Republican principles and institutions ; it being evident 
that the officer owes his place all the time directly to the will of the People, 
who at the opening of each subsecpient term bid him stay by their votes : So 
that every one oi these successive terms must be considered to stand, and it 
really stands, by itsell, as the lirst stood. 

It were indeed to be wished that in every case of elective offices also the 
People would make use of Wx. Hayes' rule, and bestow each place on such a 
person only as tiiey have good reason to believe honest, capable, and faithful; 



13 



and that, when experience has proved him to be so, they would continue him 
in his place by voting for him at the recurrence of each new term, again, and 
again. In tact, they do so now, and have done so before, with many among 
the elective officers of both the Federal and State Governments. I hope that, 
in doing this, they are always actuated by motives based on the above-men- 
tioned grounds, and on no others. 

But in contradistinction to elective offices, the ojikcs hy appointment are not 
integral parts of the Government's frame ; but, so to speak, a Hliing up. So 
that any proportion of them might exist, or not exist, without atfcctnig the 
substance, or altering the organization of the State. 

I would except trom this the ofhces of J udgcs of the United States \\\ 
general, and more especially the seats of the Supreme Bench ; which, not only 
are inte-^ral parts of this Government's frame, but constitute the chief portion 
of one of the Three Departments into which its whole power has been distri- 
buted. On this account, the Judges of the Supreme Court should needs be 
elected by the People through their votes ; and not nominated, nor appointed, 
by the President. 

I venture to say it was by mistake, or oversight, that the tramers ot our 
Constitution have named '' Me e/uri^cs o/7Ae ASV^eme 6V*^/'r' in the same 
clause with ''Ambassadors, other Public Ministers a7id Consuls, and all 
other n/ficers of the United States,'' whom that clause empowers the President 
''to nominate and appoint by, and with, the advice and consent of the 
Senate.'"' 

It is not improbable they borrowed that notion (as they did others) from 
England, where the Judges are nominated and appointed by the King, who is 
clothed with the Executive power of that Government, as the President is of 
ours. But the reason which in England justities the appointment of Judges 
by the King does not rest on his Executive power ; but rests on another power 
—the Judicial —which also is exclusively vested in the King; but the existence 
of which cannot so much as be thought possible in the President of the United 
States. 

The law and constitution ot Great Britain consider its King politically in a 
quite different light from that in which the Constitution of the United States 
of America considers its President. Not to mention the King's legal attri- 
butes,— as that of absolute perfection, or impeccability (for the King can do 
no wrong); that of perpetuity, or immortality (for the King never dies) ; and 
others ; it may truly be said that the King is the English Government ; since, 
of the three Departments of that Government, the powers of two— the Judi- 
cial and Executive— are entirely vested in the King alone; and of the power 
of the third— the Legislative— the King has the greatest, one might say, the 
controlling part. 

On this we could have no better witness and authority than Sir William 
Blackstone in his renowned Commentaries, published by him some thirty years 
before the Constitution of these United States was adopted. The King's 
capacities in the three Departments of the English Government Sir William 
distinctly states as follows : 

In regard to ihe first, he avers that " the King is a constituent part of the 
supreme legislative power ;" that, " as such, he /ws the prcroy alive of rejecting such 
provisions in Parliament as he Judges improper to be passed;'' and that "he is not 
bo und by a?iy act of parliament, unless ho be named therein by special and 
particular words." 



14 

As to the second, he says all in this brief sentence : " The supreme executive 
power of these kingdoms is vested in a single person, — the King or Queen." 

With reference to the third, he is even more expHcit, saying: " The king 
is as the fountain tof Justice, and general conservator of the peace of the kingdom. 
By the fountain of justice, the law does not mean the author, or original, but 

the distributor He is not the spring; but the reservoir, from ir/ience right 

and equity are conducted bij a thousand channels to every individual . ... In England, this 
authority ^^ (the original power of judicature) " has immemorially been exercised by 
the king, or his substitues. He, therefore, has alone thoj^ight of erecting courts of 
judicature . . And hence it is that all jurisdictions of Courts are mediately, or 
immediately, derived from the crown ; their proceedings run generally in the 
king's name. . . .It is probable, and almost certain, that in very early times 
our kings in person often heard and determined causes between party and 
party. Bat at present, by the long and uniform usage of many ages, our kings 
have delegated their whole Judicial power to the Judges of their several Courts.'" 

The source, then, from which flows the king of England's right of appoint- 
ing judges is not the executive power with which he is vested, but the pleni- 
tude of the Judical power which resides in him alone, and of parts of which he, 
by his appointments, transfers the practical exercise into the Judges of his 
several Courts, commissioning them to assist, or relieve him of the outwatd 
duty of his power; in a word, to take his place in the hearing and determin- 
ing of cases between parties in litigation, or of charges preferred against 
criminal offenders ; each in such matters, and within such limits ofjurisdiction, 
as the king, by his commission, assigns to them, respectively, liencc it may 
be said with truth that the king is the real and sole Judge in the united king- 
dom, with original and universal jurisdiction in all civil and criminal matters 
whatsoever. Hence also proceeds the king's legal attribute o( ubniuity through- 
out the Realm in regard to the administration of justice by legal process : for, 
in all of the courts anywhere located, while they sit to hear and decide the 
causes before them, the law considers the king to be present, as if he heard 
and defcrniined every cause brought before all the Courts in person. Hence 
finally the [)ropriety and truth of the well-known phrases — Thr Kings Bench,— 
The King's Courts,— The King's Judges. T'hese arc in reality the king's delegates 
and representatives ; as in the exercine of their functions they act, not only 
under the king's auspices and by his authority, but in his name. And since 
the Judges in ( rrcat P>ritain are the substitutes, the delegates, the rei)resenta- 
tives, ot the King; the conclusion follows of course thit they must ot neces- 
sity be nominated and appointed by the King whom (hey rei)re.scnt. There is 
no otiier power that could legally nominate and appoint theui. 

None of these reasons can ever be applied to the President of the Unilcd 
Stales, to justify his nominalitig and appointing the .Judges of our Supreme 
Court, or of any Court of the United States; as none of the said (luaiilications, 
or political attributes inhering in the King of England, can possibly exist in 
our President : more especially after the Constitution, in its fust three articles, 
has clearly divided the whole power of this Government into three parts, and 
specilicd by name their several recipients. 

I would iiere add an observation which suggests itsell"; niunely, that, wlule 
the entire power of this ( rovernment, in its very organi/alion, has been divided 
by the Constitution into three parts severally assigned to three distinct Depart- 
ments ; juid while the sound doctrine is generally received that each Depart- 
ment must conline, its operations WKthin its own si)here, and not encroach 
upon, nor interfere with, either of thelwoothers ; yet here we have tiie plain fact 



15 

staring us in the &ce that the Executive Department, with the assistance of 
a portion of the Legislative, is by that same Constitution empowered, not only 
to interfere with the Judical, but to make it, or give it practical existence I For, 
without Judges — the Judges nominated and appointed by the President, the 
Judical Department of the United States' Government could not be said to 
exist at all. Now, it appears to me very evident that the making of one 
Department by the action of either, or both, of the two others is far more, and 
worse, than the unduly interfering of the Departments with each other on some 
particular occasion. 

I abstam from pursuing this subject further, as this is not the place for me 
to comment on our Organic Law. Rut having been obliged by tlie matter 
in hand to note the difference intervening between elective offices and offices 
by appointment ; and seeing that the Constitution reckons among the offices 
by appointment the seats of the Supreme Bench which, I believe, belong not 
to that class; believing, consequently, that the Judges of the Supreme Court 
should not be nominated and appointed by either the Executive or Legislative 
power, but elected by the People through their votes ; I thought it incumbent 
on me \o give some reason why I so believe, lest my bare assertion on that 
point should be construed into an intention or willingness to find fault with 
the Coiistitution, which makes the occupancy of those seats dependent on the 
President's nomination and appointment in express terms. 

Resuming the thread of discourse interrupted by this long digression about 
tlie Judges of the Supreme Court, I repeat that the offices by appointment are 
not constituent parts of the Government's frame, and that the absence, or non 
existence, of any number of them would leave its organization in the same 
condition in which it is with them ; though abuse and disorder in them may 
work great mischief in the State, and eventually endanger its very existence. 
But this might come to pass as much from the action of elective officers, as 
from that of officers by appointment, or of any portion of the Community who 
have no special connection with the (lovernmcnt, except the general one of 
being its citizens ; of living under its protection ; and of being in duty bound 
to defend and maintain it. 

For the reason stated above, the offices by appointment are not conferred by the 
sovereign I'eople directly through their voles ; but the bestowal of them, as well 
as the selection of the persons to be placed in them, and, in many oases, their num- 
ber, is remitted to the discretion of the Executive offii;er whom (he People have 
already elected. And very properly are these details of administration lelt to him: 
for, he best knows, or ought to know, the wants ot the several |>arts of the Depart- 
ment whose interests he has in charge as its head ; and he must also judge when, 
in what maimer, and by whom, those wants may be best supplied to the advaiUage 
of the fe'ommon wealth. 

For the same reason, the duration of the terms which the olVices by ap|)oiiittneut 
have to run is not fixed, or limited to a certain period, like that of the terms of 
elective offices; namely, because in the former there is not the same reason for 
making them go by turns, as there visibly is in the latter. 

Without entering into details, I would j)oint again at the possibility that in this 
matter, as in all others, there may be abuses creeping in on hoth sides. For 
instance , The Executive Officer, in whose hands the People have placed the ap- 
pointing power, might prove arbitrary, or remiss : His a|)poinlees might 
prove dishonest, yet be not duly called to account, and piniished. Either 
cue of the.se things, and more both together (if they happened to concur and 
work jointly), could not fail to be extremely injurious to the Government and the 
people. 



16 

• 

I think it is hence that Mr. Hayes, with a view to set this matter on a safe and 
permanent footing for the future, has now pledged himselt' if elected, to follow in 
the footsteps of the founders ot our Government, both in selecting the persons to 
be placed in the said offices, and in measuring the limes ol their tenures. 

In regard to the first point, he proclaims his intention to revive ''the old rule, the 
true rule, that honesty, capucit//, and /idelit// coiif<tituie the only real (/ualijicatwns for office, 
and that there is no other claim." With ix'spect to the second jtoint, he declares him- 
self determined to " return to the princif)lcs and practice of the founders of the Govern- > 
ment rclio meant that the officer should be secure in his tenure as long as his personal 
character remained untarnished, and th", performance of his duties satisfactory.'" 

The sentiments expreessed by Mr. Hayes in the two |)ropositions here above 
transcribed; and those contained in the rest of this portion of his letter of accept- 
ance from beginning to end, — condemning the departure made from that rule forty 
years ago; denouncing the system based on the maxim " 7'l» the victors belong the 
spoils", which was introduced at the lime of that departure, and which still prevails; 
enumerating several of the great evils causerl by tins system, in detail; and pro- 
nouncing its abolition indispensable; are, all an<l eicli of them, woiUiy of George 
Washington, 1 mean that, in the tAatter of appointment to office and office-tenure, 
George Washington had not, could not have had. sounder or jiurer sentiments than 
those professed and inculcated by Kuthertord B. Hayes. 

I remain with sincere regard, i 

Denr Sir, 

Your obedient i-eivaiit, 

JOHN B T 



i 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 



1111 llllllll l»l'"''"" ^1 

013 789 598 5 ^' 



i/.-',«i'ii.t^il>.VJ?,-t^C<'ij'<l»K' 




»!i -i. .»■ ii»,r.«?'. »'. 



♦/.f.>.-rt:i';^^' 



